Only valid for active forum users. Active means at least 30 postings within the last 30 days (no spam postings). This will automatically being checked at www.starbike.com shopping basket so make sure that you are logged in at the WW board!If there does not appear a WW discount position when you check out you do not have enough postings!

Folks, sorry for going off topic, but please don't do that. It's wrong.

+1 means "agreement", "true", "affirmation", "endorsement" ...This comes from computer programming, some languages are using the numerical value 0 for "false", every other value means "true", when used in a condition. Hence, whenever something is false/0, then +1 turns that into "true". Adding whatever more does not make it more true.

Will link a reference when I find one. This has been bugging me for a long time.

Folks, sorry for going off topic, but please don't do that. It's wrong.

+1 means "agreement", "true", "affirmation", "endorsement" ...This comes from computer programming, some languages are using the numerical value 0 for "false", every other value means "true", when used in a condition. Hence, whenever something is false/0, then +1 turns that into "true". Adding whatever more does not make it more true.

Will link a reference when I find one. This has been bugging me for a long time.

so he was a 'talented rider', 'best climber', a winner. i've really no words to comment on this exquisite piece of journalism

This is why cycling has no credibility in the world of mainstream sports. We claim we want to be a clean sport, but then we glorify dopers and cheats with memorials like this... or made of stone on the side of mountains.

Football glorifies dopers, cheats, drug addicts, wife-beaters, tax-evaders, loudmouths, and just downright awful people in the same exact way.

Case in point is Brian Cushing. Hailed as one of the best defensive players in the NCAA and now NFL, Cushing tested positive for steroids after years of speculation. Hell, at our gym he openly discussed using steroids, growth hormone, IGF-1, and stimulants and was a complete and utter asshole to anyone that came in contact with him. He tested positive and almost nothing was said.

Then you have Pantani, who quite clearly had some issues with PEDs. He was, however, a humble person otherwise and made the sport interesting to watch. His downward spiral into depression is the opposite of someone such as Cushing, who revels in the exploits of his usage and draws satisfaction from it.

I don't see them as being the same. Maybe public denial about the bro sports is higher, but there are only a few cyclists that act like pro sports stars IMO i.e. Lance, Ricco, DiLuca, etc.

Its also not like the NFL Players Association or any other sports unions are any less corrupt, its just that the public doesn't care. Game fixing, bounties, etc have happened in many sports for a long time, but there is so much money and commercial appeal to them that it simply doesn't matter to most people. To many cycling is still a fringe sport. People don't grow up riding bikes up and down mountains for weeks on end they often grow up playing football (both types) or traditional school sports and thus have no attachment to it. It is a roadshow at best and quite hard to comprehend. The only thing they hear about it are the negatives and are never exposed to the positives because it does not have as much commercial drive and appeal nor get as much press. So what press it does get is either very good (big race results) or very bad (doping). Go tell someone in the US that NFL players dope and give them the reasons why and they'd probably admit that its plausible, but they don't care.

In this vein I don't care about doping in cycling as much as most do. I've watched the tour for the past 24 years of my life (almost my whole life) and grew up knowing that riders probably doped. I sluffed it off then because I liked the event and sluff it off now because I still love watching the sport. In this regard I appreciate Pantani because he contributed to an aspect of the sport I love(d) regardless of how he did it. Its not like I thought that he was some saint whose life I would use to set an example for my children. When I hear people just complain about every rider as being this or that I sometimes feel that they're truly missing out on an enjoyment in watching pro cycling and their enjoyment comes out of some sick internal desire to simply be a critic.

KWalker wrote:Football glorifies dopers, cheats, drug addicts, wife-beaters, tax-evaders, loudmouths, and just downright awful people in the same exact way.

Case in point is Brian Cushing. Hailed as one of the best defensive players in the NCAA and now NFL, Cushing tested positive for steroids after years of speculation. Hell, at our gym he openly discussed using steroids, growth hormone, IGF-1, and stimulants and was a complete and utter asshole to anyone that came in contact with him. He tested positive and almost nothing was said.

Then you have Pantani, who quite clearly had some issues with PEDs. He was, however, a humble person otherwise and made the sport interesting to watch. His downward spiral into depression is the opposite of someone such as Cushing, who revels in the exploits of his usage and draws satisfaction from it.

I don't see them as being the same. Maybe public denial about the bro sports is higher, but there are only a few cyclists that act like pro sports stars IMO i.e. Lance, Ricco, DiLuca, etc.

Its also not like the NFL Players Association or any other sports unions are any less corrupt, its just that the public doesn't care. Game fixing, bounties, etc have happened in many sports for a long time, but there is so much money and commercial appeal to them that it simply doesn't matter to most people. To many cycling is still a fringe sport. People don't grow up riding bikes up and down mountains for weeks on end they often grow up playing football (both types) or traditional school sports and thus have no attachment to it. It is a roadshow at best and quite hard to comprehend. The only thing they hear about it are the negatives and are never exposed to the positives because it does not have as much commercial drive and appeal nor get as much press. So what press it does get is either very good (big race results) or very bad (doping). Go tell someone in the US that NFL players dope and give them the reasons why and they'd probably admit that its plausible, but they don't care.

In this vein I don't care about doping in cycling as much as most do. I've watched the tour for the past 24 years of my life (almost my whole life) and grew up knowing that riders probably doped. I sluffed it off then because I liked the event and sluff it off now because I still love watching the sport. In this regard I appreciate Pantani because he contributed to an aspect of the sport I love(d) regardless of how he did it. Its not like I thought that he was some saint whose life I would use to set an example for my children. When I hear people just complain about every rider as being this or that I sometimes feel that they're truly missing out on an enjoyment in watching pro cycling and their enjoyment comes out of some sick internal desire to simply be a critic.

wassertreter wrote:+1 means "agreement", "true", "affirmation", "endorsement" ...This comes from computer programming, some languages are using the numerical value 0 for "false", every other value means "true", when used in a condition. Hence, whenever something is false/0, then +1 turns that into "true". Adding whatever more does not make it more true.

In the Google context, it means "add one to the people in agreement with this statement". So it's not Boolean, but cardinal.

i will write once again what i've always said about doping athletes - they are the true victims in this equation. whether it's a 'humble guy' like Pantani, an 'asshole' like Armstrong or an 'utter idiot' like Ricco, they all share a very similar past of young aspiring cyclists who, at some point, were introduced to doping by someone trusted. managers, coaches, doctors, or all of them alltogether. that's how it all started for each and every one of them. the difference is how they handle it - some would fall apart, some would get victimized, some would try to make as much for themselves out of it as possible.

i'm sick of banning athletes, which honestly only mocks us, the fans, by cancelling results of the events we've witnessed ourselves, distorting the history of cycling and undermining the whole idea of competition. i'm even sicker of people who keep their fingers crossed whenever there's a chance to simply erase some name from the charts and re-write (or un-write) a race instead of making the effort to sort out what are the true reasons behind a positive sample. i for one feel like an idiot, following pro cycling, watching races all excited, just to hear after a while that the winner of last year's Tour Of Something is... no one!

i believe we're about to hear a lot of 'shocking' statements from ex- and present pros in the weeks to come. what's appaling is a lack of idea how to deal with that - ban them all and erase all the results, the whole history of cycling?